Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.

Get a Professional Answer

Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.Ask follow up questions if you need to.

100% Satisfaction Guarantee

Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Brandon M. Your Own Question

Brandon M., Counselor at Law

Category: Criminal Law

Satisfied Customers: 12485

Experience: Attorney

11182422

Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...

Brandon M. is online now

I was in a civil lawsuit for accusations of theft. During

Customer Question

I was in a civil lawsuit for accusations of theft. During the discovery period the plaintiff took these accusations to the grand jury without notifying me nor my lawyer..... they granted an indictment and then the plaintiff dismissed the civil case for non-suit.I have not received a transcript of the grand jury hearing, but the information I have been able to receive from the opposing party contains many lies, miscalculations, and is purely case of malice and to be vindictive.How can I recall for a second grand jury trial, or get the case dismissed from the judge or convince the prosecuting attorney to drop the case?

Hi again. That's not my answer, but please understand that I am a real, live person. Your reply came 24 hours after the question posed, I don't interact with customers 7 days per week, and I was off the website for a few days. I'm definitely glad to resolve your original question.

oh ok I thought it was automatic response based on certain words I type. they presented false evidence to the grand jury and I wasn't aware there was even a grand jury hearing. My lawyer and I were going through the process of the civil suit

The grand jury is a procedural safeguard, primarily designed to protect the public against rogue District Attorneys who file malicious or frivolous criminal charges. They don't determine guilt or innocence, and it is not a trial--they are asked to look at the evidence of guilt and determine if there's enough evidence to move forward with a criminal trial. Note that I said they are asked to look at the evidence of guilt; I am not saying that they are asked to look at all of the evidence. They're basically told "this is why we think the defendant is guilty." If the Grand Jury is then persuaded that the defendant might be guilty, it can then go to a criminal prosecution. The criminal prosecution is where the state must prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where the defendant can confront witnesses and question evidence, and where the defendant can put forward a defense.

The defendant doesn't have to be notified that a grand jury is convening (and oftentimes isn't). Procedurally, it's not the right time or place to challenge evidence. Think of the Grand Jury like the District Attorney's supervisor who has to approve a criminal prosecution. The DA goes to the Grand Jury and says "we think he should be prosecuted: here's why." When the prosecution is approved, actual guilt is then determined by the court (and usually a jury).

So getting a new grand jury based on bad or incomplete information isn't a possibility. The Grand Jury isn't expected to have all the information, nor is the defendant expected to mount a defense. They're just a second set of eyes to make sure that the DA isn't abusing his/her power. The trial is where the prosecution has to again present all of their evidence and the defendant is allowed to question all of it and present a response.

I do understand thank you. I read that 99.935% of people get indicted after a grand jury hearing.......... about how much of that 99.935% ACCTUALLY reaches court? (average number get dismiss/ dropped/etc?)

WOW that is crazy how the system works.... I understand if the grand jury was presented only a small part of evidence there is no hope for another grand jury BUT if the grand jury was told flat out LIES (provable 100% LIES)......... also is the D.A. the person that presents to the grand jury? (Dallas district attorney Susan Hawk was in rehab for the majority of her position as Dallas D.A. I don't believe she was competent (or mentally stable enough) to determine what should be presented to the grand jury (the prior D.A. passed on this case at LEAST 3 times).

The district attorney's office is usually the entity presenting evidence to the grand jury, but they aren't exclusive. (For example, the attorney general's office.). The DA personally doesn't present to the grand jury in most cases--it's his or her office that does it.